Case law

Alana Crutcher-Sanchez v. James L. Wagner

687 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … A qualified immunity analysis involves: first, whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

805 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 28, 2011

Clearly Established Right The second step in determining if qualified immunity applies is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity does not apply as to Kreiling. IV.

Elizabeth Fujiwara v. Charles G. Clark, Etc.

703 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 1, 1983

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

David McNair v. Collin Pratt

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2025

In denying qualified immunity, the district court resolved the legal question of whether Pratt’s conduct violated clearly established law, giving us the opportunity to review immediately its resolution of that issue. … In this case, we can begin and end our analysis with the second step of the qualified- immunity analysis, because we hold that Pratt’s conduct did not violate McNair’s clearly established rights.

Charles v. Grief

522 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2008

that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … established law, officials may sometimes be required to proceed to trial even though the ultimate resolution of those factual disputes may show that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability.”

Blissett v. Coughlin

66 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 1995

In the context of the claims in this case, qualified immunity affords government officials a two-tier defense “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Consistent with their pretrial posture, Appellants made no further effort to establish a qualified immunity defense following the colloquy.

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

833 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … qualified immunity appropriate.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Heard v. Dulayev

29 F.4th 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2022

The defendants argued Dulayev was entitled to qualified immunity because Dulayev’s alleged actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under clearly established law. … “In cases where we . . . resolve [the related] claim under the clearly- established-law prong” of the qualified immunity defense, however, “we have repeatedly declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2010

immunity. 4 Specifically, the court held that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs by licensed chiropractors in California was legal. … In its December 24, 2009 order the court held that because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs was lawful, defendants Weydert and Coffey were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims under

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

Chew v. Gates

27 F.3d 1432 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1994

Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir.1993), in which we employed “a two-part analysis” to determine whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity: “1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established … 's first question dictates our decision on qualified immunity, and not only when we decide that the law is not clearly established.

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

(“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

Onnette v. Reed

832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

Collins v. Jordan

110 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 1996

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto’s legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Bordas v. Washtenaw County

1 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 638-40 ; Harlow v. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.